This is getting silly

[Simon St.Laurent]

At 04:07 PM 9/2/99 -0700, Tim Bray wrote:
>All this rumor and innuendo is beside the point.  There is a body of
>people called the HTML Working Group who made a set of decisions
>reflected in the current XHTML 1.0 WD.  The fact that there were
>substantial changes at the last moment is first of all not unprecedented,
>secondly not surprising, and thirdly, not the issue here.
>
>There are all sorts of honest grounds for disagreement on namespace
>handling in XHTML 1.0, and they are worth investing technical debate in.  
>The current wave of postings is just a waste of time.  -Tim

Is it really silly?  Or does it just bother you that the lack of a
rationale for this decision makes the W3C look terrible? Apparently not
just to outsiders, at that.

If it weren't for the impact it has on lots of xml-dev readers, I'd say we
ought to drop it completely.  Unfortunately, these workings affect a _lot_
of people outside of the W3C's corridors.  I'd love to drop it, if it
didn't matter so much.

It's a barrel of laughs, indeed, quite silly...

Simon St.Laurent
XML: A Primer (2nd Ed - September)
Building XML Applications
Inside XML DTDs: Scientific and Technical
Sharing Bandwidth / Cookies
http://www.simonstl.com

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at ic.ac.uk)